Involving the Public in Risk Communication

1
Involving the Public in Risk Communication

• Katherine A. McComas, Ph.D.
• University of Maryland

2
What This Tutorial Covers

• Reasons for involving the public in risk
  communication
• A review of some common participatory methods
• Things to consider when choosing among methods of
  involvement
• Some outcomes of public involvement

3
What Does Involving the Public Mean?

• There are many different types and ranges of
  public involvement.
• Common forms of public involvement include
• Public hearings
• Negotiated rule-making
• Citizen panels or advisory committees
• Mail or telephone surveys
• These are just a few of many techniques available
  to risk communicators.

4
Why Should the Public Be Involved?

• Fiorino (1990) poses three arguments for public
  involvement
• Substantive lay judgments about risk are as
  sound or more so than those of experts (p. 227)
• The public may see things that the experts do
  not. The public is also often more aware of the
  social and political values related to the risk
  situation.
• Normative technocratic orientation is
  incompatible with democratic ideals (p. 227)
• The public has a right to be involved in
  decisions affecting their interests.
• Instrumental lay participation in risk
  decisions makes them more legitimate and leads to
  better results (p. 228)
• If we deny the public the right to participate in
  decisions affecting them, we only deepen their
  skepticism of risk institutions. Moreover, a
  broader degree of participation may reduce the
  probability of error in resulting decisions.

5
Some Participatory Methods

• Public hearings/meetings/scoping/availability
  sessions open forums where people come to hear
  and respond to agency proposals.
• Initiatives issues are placed on ballots for
  citizens to vote for approval.
• Citizen surveys solicit representative sample
  of public opinion on issue via questionnaires.
• Negotiated rule making representatives of
  organized interests meet and negotiate
  environmental regulations.
• Citizen review panels a lay jury of citizens
  evaluate science, consider alternative, and offer
  recommendations.
• Citizen advisory committees a selection of
  citizens serve for a certain period in an
  advisory capacity to the agency.
• Workshops citizens are invited to a formal or
  informal gathering where issues are discussed at
  length.

6
Choosing Among Methods of Involvement

• How do risk communicators decide which
  participation methods to use? Here are some
  questions to ask
• What are the legal requirements?
• Some techniques are required by law.
• For example, Environmental Impact Assessments on
  proposed environmental projects may require a
  public hearing to receive public comments. These
  hearings are listed in the Federal Register.
• Other techniques are used voluntarily.
• For example, some agencies use scoping sessions
  with the public at the beginning of a decision
  making process to scope out potential areas of
  concern.

7
Choosing Among Methods, contd.

• What are the goals and objectives for involving
  the public?
• If the intention is primarily to provide
  information to the public and solicit the
  publics input, some options to consider include
• Informational public meetings (formats often
  include short informational presentations,
  audience comments, and a question and answer
  period)
• Open House or availability sessions (formats
  often include poster-type displays attended to by
  experts or officials preceded or followed by
  formal or informal public meeting)
• Mail or telephone surveys conducted with a
  representative sample to provide information to
  the public and generate feedback
• If the intention to to allow for more extensive
  feedback from the public, other options include
  citizen advisory committees, workshops, and
  negotiated rule-making.
• Each of these options arguably involves a more
  long-term, meaningful commitment from the
  organization and the public.

8
Choosing Among Methods, contd.

• What messages are we sending to the public with
  this method of involvement?
• Risk communicators may want to consider the
  unintentional messages they send to the public in
  the methods they choose for involvement.
• e.g., Does the process satisfy normative
  criteria?
• Fiorino (1990) suggests four criteria for
  evaluating public involvement according to
  normative criteria
• It allows for the direct involvement of amateurs
  in the decisions
• It enables lay audiences to participate directly
  in the process
• It provides structure for face-to-face discussion
  over time
• It offers citizens opportunity to participate on
  some level of equality with officials and
  experts.

9
Some Outcomes of Public Involvement

• Besides satisfying democratic criteria, when used
  appropriately and effectively, public involvement
  can lead to better decisions and better relations
  with the public.
• Benefits to the organization include enhanced
  credibility and enhanced public satisfaction.
• When used carelessly or disingenuously, public
  involvement can have negative outcomes.
• Consequences include increased skepticism of the
  organization, dissatisfaction with the decision
  making process, and unwarranted concern about
  risk.

10
References

• Chess, C., Purcell, K. (1999). Public
  participation and the environment Do we know
  what works? Environmental Science Technology,
  33, 2685-2692.
• Fiorino, D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and
  environmental risk A survey of institutional
  mechanisms. Science, Technology, Human Values,
  15, 226-243.